Natural Communities Magazine A magazine devoted to the local natural wellness culture.

Archive for August, 2007

Almond Growers Seek Delay of Pasteurization Rule

Friday, August 31st, 2007

In January, the U.S. Department of Agriculture announced that virtually all almonds would have to be pasteurized as of September 1. This new rule was a result of Salmonella outbreaks in 2001 and 2004 that were traced back to raw almonds.

The California Almond Board is now requesting the USDA delay the implementation until March 1, 2008 in order to ensure there’s enough pasteurization capacity available to comply, without disrupting the flow of nuts to the market.

The USDA has stated it will consider the request and publish their decision in the Federal Register by September 1.

San Francisco Gate August 7, 2007

Dr. Mercola’s Comments

This San Francisco Gate article states that “pasteurization” is a process where “the shelled and hulled nuts are laid out on a conveyor belt that passes through a moist burst of steam to heat the kernel surface to about 200 degrees, killing any pathogens present.”
As gentle and safe as this may sound, pasteurizing almonds means they are no longer natural or raw.

Anytime you heat a food much above 105 degrees you start destroying the value of the food. The higher the temperature the more damage that is done.

The requirement to pasteurize ALL almonds means that it may be next to impossible to find an almond in the United States that’s still in the state nature intended, and no one knows how this process will impact the nutritional value or other properties of the nuts.

This is not rocket science folks. Nearly everyone readily accepts that when you cook vegetables to death they do not provide the same nutritional value as when they are eaten raw. Similarly, I have documented the enormous problems with pasteurized milk. It would seem rational to conclude that one would see similar reduction in the nutritional value of the almonds once they are pasteurized. Fortunately hundreds of thousands of Americans are finally appreciating this truth and making a major shift to raw milk.

Meanwhile, in a letter received on April 30, 2007 from Mr. Richard Waycot, the president and CEO of the Almond Board of California (ABC) himself as a response to an article I had posted on my site, I was told that the ABC will not use any heating or radiation to “pasteurize” their almonds. Instead, he explained, they will use propylene oxide in their almond “pasteurization” process. In the FDA’s “Guide to Inspections of Manufacturers of Miscellaneous Food Products,” this process is referred to as “terminal gas sterilization.”

Also, in April 2007, the FDA proposed relaxing the labeling requirements, and allowing companies to use the more palatable term “pasteurized”, to describe irradiated foods ,if the radiation kills germs as well as the pasteurization process does. In essence, this means that almonds may not only be pasteurized, but irradiated. Apparently the term “pasteurized” is an OK substitute for “terminal gas sterilization” as well. If the FDA gets its way, as long as the food looks and smells normal, chances are better than good you won’t ever know whether that specific food has been “nuked,” or “terminally gassed,” or not.

In his letter, Mr. Waycott also stated, “Pasteurized raw almonds do not differ in any significant way, taste, quality, or nutritional value from untreated almonds. Pasteurization simply reduces the presence of harmful bacteria on those almonds to safe levels while maintaining taste, quality, and nutritional value.”

I don’t think so.

Even a simple search for proplyene oxide in Wikipedia provides the following information: “Propylene oxide is a highly toxic flammable chemical compound. It was once used as a racing fuel, but that usage is now prohibited under the US National Hot Rod rules for safety reasons. It is also used in thermobaric weapons. It is an epoxide.”

The bottom line is that if any process kills bacteria, it has the potential to cause problems in humans, OR significantly change the quality of the food. The flimsy reassurances that “pasteurized” almonds — after being treated with prohibited racing fuel — would be the same as raw almonds are simply false.

As an aside, although many turn to nuts as a health food, I consistently find that overweight patients who find it difficult to lose weight are eating a lot of almonds or other nuts. It is one of the most common reasons why people cannot lose weight, or lose weight slowly, while following a low- or no-grain diet.

Like most whole foods, nuts can have important health benefits, just use them sparingly if you are overweight, and be sure to choose nuts that are ideal for your nutritional type.

If you want to write a letter to the US Department of Agriculture to express your concerns you can follow the model Cornucopia Institute used.and send ti to

Secretary Mike Johanns
United States Department of Agriculture
1400 Independence Ave SW
Whitten Building Suite 200A
Washington, D.C. 20250

www.mercola.com

USDA Brings Enforcement Hammer Down Heavily on Aurora

Thursday, August 30th, 2007

Tonight at 7:20 p.m. EST, August 29, the USDA issued an emergency news release announcing that they had sent a Letter of Revocation to the Aurora Organic Dairy. In lieu of revoking Aurora’s organic certification, the Agency has instead entered into a consent agreement requiring the nation’s largest certified organic dairy to make substantial and wide-ranging changes to the livestock management practices at their operations in Texas and Colorado. (A copy of USDA’s news release has been appears below, in full.)

If the terms of the agreement are not met, USDA officials warn Aurora’s management that the agreement they have reached “will be withdrawn” and the Agency may “revoke the organic certification” for Aurora’s Platteville, CO dairy processing plant that packages private label milk for several national chains, including Wal-Mart, Costco, Target, Trader Joe’s and Safeway. The USDA also warns Aurora’s officials that their operations “will be closely monitored for compliance with the provisions of the agreement.” Although Aurora is the largest private-label organic milk supplier in the United States they also market milk under their own label; High Meadows.

Additionally, Aurora has agreed not to renew the organic certification for its Woodward, Colo., facility.

Unlike the crass public relations spin that was released by Aurora earlier today the formal legal complaints Cornucopia filed with USDA against Aurora in 2005 and 2006 were not dismissed. In fact, earlier tonight I received a call from a high-ranking USDA official to say that the Agency had specifically rushed their official news release on the events out to the public in an effort to dispel the misinformation caused by Aurora’s factually erroneous representations.

Although we should be proud at The Cornucopia Institute that our meticulous research and well documented legal complaints have resulted in this action, and the previously announced decertification of the 10,000-head Vander Eyk dairy in California, we are still not wholly satisfied with the outcome and enforcement action taken by the USDA.

After years of delay Aurora, having expanded to five industrial scale dairies in Colorado and Texas, is still being allowed to remain in business despite being found guilty of multiple violations of organic law. These were not accidental violations – they were willful and premeditated violations of the law by a multimillion dollar business enterprise, the largest organic dairy producer in the United States.

All of the allegations that we outlined in our legal complaints (available on our website) are delineated in this consent agreement. The investigators at AMS compliance have obviously done their jobs well and are to be commended for their diligence. But it is the political appointees at USDA that have decided to let Aurora off somewhat easy in this matter. This is exactly what we warned about in our news release of August 14 (also available at www.cornucopia.org).

Major points that were detailed in the original Cornucopia legal complaints and that are also addressed in the consent agreement include:

  • Aurora was not allowing their animals access to pasture
  • Aurora brought in animals from a non-certified contract heifer ranch
  • Aurora converted animals from conventional to organic production when the regulations (because of their initial 80/20 conversion) prohibited that.
  • And Aurora purchased organic feed for their Texas operation from a friend of the dairy manager who had sprayed his crops with herbicides during transition.

During all of this time, Aurora was building market share, helping drive the price down for “real” organic farmers, and being a driving force behind the current surplus in the organic dairy market. They were defrauding consumers by selling milk that did not qualify to be labeled as organic.

The USDA chose not to levy any fines and Aurora is being allowed to remain in business.

It must be noted that §205.100(c)(1) of the organic regulations states that “any operation that knowingly sells or labels a product as organic, except in accordance with the Act, shall be subject to a civil penalty of not more than $10,000 per violation.”

This is only a partial victory in protecting the economic interests of the family scale dairy farmers we work for.

Stay tuned. We will aggressively be telling consumers, and the wholesale buyers, that have been buying milk from Aurora, that they have been scammed by charlatans. Hopefully ethical businesses will discontinue their relationship with Aurora and we will see the surplus eaten away by new demand for “real” organic milk.

I want to thank the staff of The Cornucopia Institute for their hard work over the years in pursuing our complaints against Vander Eyk, Aurora and Dean Foods/Horizon (the only factory-farm dairy operator, profiled in our complaints, that has yet to be adjudicated by the USDA). I particularly want to thank our research director, Will Fantle who is responsible for crafting our legal complaints and our legal counsel, Gary Cox, who has helped review documents and spearheaded our lawsuit against the USDA for release of related documents they had illegally withheld from the public.

I especially want to thank the many members of The Cornucopia Institute who had confidence in our work and have financially underwritten the expenses related to this campaign. It is an honor to work for the organic farmers of this country who I have so much respect and admiration for.

We will be releasing more news and analysis when it becomes available.

Best regards,

Mark Kastel
Codirector
The Cornucopia Institute
 608-625-2042


USDA News Release

AURORA ORGANIC DAIRY SIGNS CONSENT AGREEMENT WITH USDA’s AGRICULTURAL MARKETING SERVICE

WASHINGTON, Aug. 29, 2007 – The USDA Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) has entered into a consent agreement with Aurora Organic Dairy (Aurora) in response to a Notice of Proposed Revocation issued earlier this year alleging violations of National Organic Program (NOP) regulations. Under the consent agreement, Aurora’s Platteville, Colo., facility must meet several conditions in order to continue to operate as a certified organic dairy operation. These conditions include removing certain animals from the organic herd and ceasing to apply the organic label to certain milk. Additionally, AMS will exercise increased scrutiny over Aurora’s operations during a one-year probationary review period. If Aurora does not abide by the agreement during that time, AMS may withdraw from the agreement and could revoke the organic certification for Aurora’s Platteville, Colo., plant.

“The organic industry is booming and the National Organic Program is a high priority for USDA,” said Bruce I. Knight, under secretary for marketing and regulatory programs, “and through this consent agreement consumers can be assured that milk labeled as organic in the supermarket is indeed organic.”

Under terms of the consent agreement Aurora also must file new organic systems plans for its Platteville, Colo., and Dublin, TX, facilities. These new plans will address all of the inconsistencies between its operations and the NOP regulations identified in the Notice of Proposed Revocation.

Major adjustments required at Aurora’s Platteville, Colo., facility include:

1) providing daily access to pasture during the growing season,

acknowledging that lactation is not a reason to deny access to pasture;

2) reducing the number of cows to a level consistent with available pasture with agreed maximum stocking densities;

3) eliminating improperly transitioned cows from its herd and not marketing those cows’ milk as organic; and

4) agreeing to use the more stringent transition process in the NOP regulations for animals added to its dairy herd.

Aurora also agreed not to renew the organic certification for its Woodward, Colo., facility. Additionally, Aurora agreed to enter into written agreements with suppliers of animals for its Dublin, Texas facility that verify the certification of those suppliers and the proper transitioning to the organic status of those animals.

AMS initiated its investigation of Aurora based upon a complaint alleging insufficient pasture for its animals. In investigating this complaint, AMS investigators also uncovered the improper transitioning of animals and a failure to maintain adequate records.

Aurora’s Platteville, Colo. and Dublin, Texas plants will be closely monitored for compliance with the provisions of the agreement. If AMS finds the terms of the consent agreement are not being met, then the agreement will be withdrawn and AMS could revoke the organic certification for Aurora’s Platteville, Colo., plant.

As a result of the investigation, Aurora’s certifying agent, the Colorado Department of Agriculture (CDA), agreed earlier this year to make several changes in its operation, including attending increased NOP training and hiring additional personnel.

Congress passed the Organic Foods Production Act (OFPA) of 1990. The OFPA required the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) to develop national standards for organically produced agricultural products to assure consumers that agricultural products marketed as organic meet consistent, uniform standards. The OFPA and the National Organic Program (NOP) regulations require that agricultural products labeled as organic originate from farms or handling operations certified by a State or private entity that has been accredited by USDA.

The NOP is a marketing program housed within the USDA Agricultural Marketing Service. Neither the OFPA nor the NOP regulations address food safety or nutrition. Additional information about this program is available on the National Organic Program Web site at www.ams.usda.gov/nop.

1000 Americans will Fast for Climate Change

Wednesday, August 29th, 2007

Nearly One Thousand Americans will Fast to Pressure Congress for Climate Change Legislation

Dear Friends,

The September 4th (and beyond) Climate Emergency Fast keeps growing and building! A week ago there were 350 of us; today there are 667. Some of those who’ve joined include Rev. Jim Wallis of Sojourners, Indian author and activist Vandana Shiva, South African poet Dennis Brutus, Jared Duval, former National Director of the Sierra Student Coalition, Rev. Charles Morris of Michigan Interfaith Power and Light and Step It Up leaders Will Bates and Jeremy Osborn. They’re joining people like Bill McKibben, Rev. Bob Edgar, Van Jones, Rev. Lennox Yearwood, Sally Bingham, Medea Benjamin, Adrienne Maree Brown, Mike Tidwell, Brent Blackwelder, Ilyse Hogue, Billy Parish, Liz Veazey and many more.

And we’ve looked more closely at where we’re all from. We’re from 46 states, the District of Columbia and, so far, ten countries: USA, Bolivia, New Zealand, South Africa, Canada, India, Germany, Colombia, Puerto Ricoand Australia. If you live in or know anyone in Delaware, Nebraska, North Dakota or South Dakota who appreciate the urgency of the climate crisis, please consider joining or take a minute to reach out to others in those states. They’re the only states where we still do not have any fasters. You sign up for the fast by going to www.climateemergency.org http://www.climateemergency.org .

45 of those signed up so far are fasting for from 2-6 days, 12 are fasting for from one to three weeks, and four of us are open-ended.

The primary purpose of this action is to bring political pressure on the U.S. Congress, demanding that they pass strong climate legislation. Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi are committed to trying to get climate legislation passed this fall. We are focusing on three main demands, which are:

  • no new coal or coal-to-liquid plants
  • freeze and major reductions in carbon emissions
  • a $25 billion downpayment in the 2008 fiscal year for conservation, efficiency and renewables

We urge people, whether fasting or not, to take action on September 4th, to apply pressure on local Congresspeople and the U.S. Senators in your state. You can organize a vigil outside one of their offices. You can set up a meeting with their staff people (since they’ll be in D.C. on this day). You can get your friends, co-workers, colleagues and anyone else you know to make phone calls or send emails or faxes urging that they support our demands and take strong action to address the climate crisis.

Finally, along those lines, below is information about “1 Sky,” an important initiative with which we are involved.

Let’s keep spreading the word and building this action!

Ted Glick Coordinator, U.S. Climate Emergency Council, http://www.climateemergency.org

www.organicconsumers.org

Common crop herbicide Atrazine linked to reproductive mutations in amphibians

Tuesday, August 28th, 2007

Pollutants such as pesticides and toxins damage the ecosystem and cause a variety of damaging ailments in humans. One particular herbicide, Atrazine, has now been found to turn male frogs into hermaphrodites, rendering them impotent by causing their gonads to produce eggs.

A subject of great scientific and political controversy, Atrazine was first introduced in 1958 and today is one of the most widely used herbicides in the world. It is a potential carcinogen and has a half-life in soil of anywhere from 15 to 100 days. This time allows for Atrazine biodegration, during which the chemical is dechlorinated until it produces a an end product of cyanuric acid, a toxic compound.

Atrazine is also used throughout the world in the production of maize, sorghum, sugar cane, pineapples, chemical fallows, grassland, macadamia nuts, conifers forestry, roses and grassland. Its most common application is for use in conservation tillage systems to prevent soil erosion and runoff, and to prevent weeds from growing in major crops. As a result, a good deal of the Atrazine applied to crops is washed into rivers, streams, lakes and municipal drinking water supplies.

A scientific study revealed the truth

In 2002, a breakthrough study on the environmental effects of Atrazine was led by Dr. Tyrone B. Hayes, an associate professor of integrative biology at the University of California at Berkeley. The research revealed that Atrazine not only contaminates ground and surface water, but also is an endocrine disruptor — chemically castrating all male amphibians by stripping them of a key hormone. This appears to have had a major impact on wild amphibians and is likely to be an important contributor to this species’ global decline.

What struck us as unbelievable was that Atrazine could cause such dramatic effects at such low levels,” said Hayes. “If you take five grains of salt, divide this weight by five thousand, that is the amount of Atrazine that causes these abnormalities. Atrazine-exposed frogs don’t have normal reproductive systems. The males have ovaries in their testes and much smaller vocal organs.

The use of Atrazine in the environment is basically an uncontrolled experiment — there seems to be no Atrazine-free environment. Because it is so widespread, aquatic environments are at risk. It is obviously affecting frogs. We have shown serious effects on their sexual development. Some had three ovaries and three testes, some had ovaries on one side and testes on the other, one animal even had six testes…We need to ask the questions, ‘What are the environmental costs of using Atrazine? What diversity have we lost?’”

Evidently, however, hermaphroditism in frogs is a well-known phenomenon that has been monitored and studied for decades all over the world. The study claims that even at low concentrations (1/30th the dose deemed safe by the EPA), Atrazine may cause hermaphroditism in North American frogs. It has also been shown to lower hormone and testosterone levels in sexually mature male frogs to much lower than normal female frogs. At this point, it is still unclear whether Atrazine leads to reduced fertility, but the likelihood seems to be that this would impair a frog’s ability to breed and produce offspring.

The study research was done without any industry financing provided to Dr. Hayes and his coauthors. Hayes originally had been hired as a consultant by Ecorisk (now Syngenta) in order to conduct research on Atrazine and its effects on the environment. The results of the study were later published in April 2002 in Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, and in October 2002 in Nature magazine.

This is very important and elegant work,” said Theo Colborn, Ph.D.,a senior scientist at the World Wildlife Fund. Colborn is recognized worldwide for his expertise with endocrine disrupting chemicals. “Tyrone’s work demonstrates the need to do research on the safety of chemicals in the field where the animals live and at the levels to which they are exposed. The changes he found in the gonads were not discovered with the traditional high-dose Atrazine experiments used in the past. In addition, microscopic examination of the internal organs of the frogs is required to detect the hidden effects from low-dose exposure.”

Results of the EPA investigation

Atrazine has been widely used by approximately 80 countries over the last 40 years. However, it has been recently banned in several countries, including France, Germany, Italy, Sweden and Norway. The weed killer is still on sale in the UK, as well as in the U.S.

The EPA and its independent Scientific Advisory Panel (SAP) scrutinized this study in 2003, concluding there was not enough information or data to determine if amphibian development was affected by Atrazine. They classified this herbicide as “not likely” to be carcinogenic in 2003, even recommending that the chemical’s registration be renewed. According to the EPA, they did “not find any results among the available studies that would lead us to conclude that a potential cancer risk is likely from exposure to Atrazine.”

However, the EPA also claimed in 2003, based on Hayes’ research, that there was “sufficient evidence” to conclude there is a definite chance that Atrazine does affect amphibian reproduction and reproductive organs. The EPA was unwilling to concede —stating that these results were not consistent enough to justify a national ban on the chemical.

In August of that year, The Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) brought forth a lawsuit against EPA. The council charged that the EPA had failed to protect endangered species and the environment from the toxic effects of Atrazine. This was due to statements made by the EPA that this chemical has the potential to cause harm to endangered species, even though it was allowed to remain on the market.

In October 2007, the EPA will release their evaluation on the validity of Atrazine research and the effects this chemical has on amphibian gonadal development. These findings will be presented to the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) Scientific Advisory Panel (SAP). These findings will include newer scientific research that was conducted in 2005/2006 by Syngenta Crop Protection, Inc. and any open literature studies that were evaluated by the EPA.

Atrazine is just one of a long list of pesticides thought to have hormone disrupting effects and many of these turn up in our food as residues,” said Sandra Bell, a pesticides campaigner with the Friends of the Earth environmental organization. “In fact, we’ve seen recent evidence that farmers are finding that the pesticides that the bio-tech companies sell to them to go with the GM crops are just not effective — they’re not working — and therefore the farmers are actually resorting to older very toxic chemicals. Gender bending effects on fish and frogs raise serious concerns about the impact such chemicals are having on our wildlife, especially as the effects were found at such low levels. But even more alarming is the potential for these products to affect human health.

I think it’s clear that people don’t want pesticides in their food but also that it’s not just a simple issue of banning all pesticides overnight. Clearly that would be very difficult for our farmers and farmers in other countries. So what we need is a process of phasing out these chemicals and replacing them with safer alternatives and replacing them with different methods of farming. For that we do need a commitment of resources from the Government and from the retailers to carry out research and development into different ways of farming, but also into safer products that don’t leave residues in our food.”

In addition to the work conducted by Professor Hayes, similar research conducted by Warren P. Porter of the University of Wisconsin at Madison claims that Atrazine may also disrupt other hormonal systems in amphibious creatures.

Denying the problems with Atrazine

There are still those, however, who refuse to take these findings as fact. According to Alex Avery, Director of Research and Education at the Center for Global Food Issues (CGFI), there are many other variables that could easily be responsible for and explain amphibious hermaphroditism, such as parasites, viruses, temperature and any number of other natural factors. “Hayes’s latest study is reminiscent of recent peer-reviewed studies that tried to link pesticides to frog limb abnormalities, but were debunked after further studies found natural parasitic flatworms to be the cause. Until this work has been corroborated by other labs, it must be considered preliminary and inconclusive,” said Avery

Amid recent concerns about human and ecological health, environmental campaigners are calling for a ban on Atrazine. Due to the research done on this chemical by Hayes and others in the field, Atrazine now has been banned or restricted in Austria, Slovenia, Germany, Denmark, Italy, France and the UK.

The effects of Atrazine on frogs were examined prior to Hayes’ work, but similar abnormalities had not been reported. This is what is primarily fueling the debate over these findings — that Hayes and his colleagues are the only ones so far willing to state these findings as fact. So far, no other independent studies have found anything similar.

The reason, according to Hayes, is that “they were looking for the wrong things. Most people were looking for external deformities, mortality or cancer. Atrazine-induced abnormalities are subtler — it took a year of experimentation before even we noticed the consequences.” Since then, more independent and industry research has been conducted on Atrazine; many of the current conclusions are very similar to those previously made by Hayes.

Other names used by chemical companies and pesticide manufacturers to designate the herbicide “Atrazine” include: 2-chloro-4-(2-propylamino)-6-ethylamino-s-triazine, 2-chloro-4-ethylamino-6-isopropylamino-s-triazine, 2-chloro-4-ethylamino-6-isopropylamino-s-triazine, 2-chloro-4-(isopropylamino)-6-ethylamino-s-triazine, Ortho St. Augustine Weed and Feed, 6-chloro-N-ethyl-N-isopropyl-s-triazine-2,4-diamine, A 361, AAtrex, AAtrex 4L, AAtrex 80W, AAtrex Nine-O, Actinite PK, Akticon, Aktikon, Aktikon PK, Aktinit A, Aktinit PK, Argezin, Atrazinax, Atranex, Atrasine, Atrataf, Atratol, Atratol A, Atrazine, Atrazine 4L, Atrazine 80W, Atrazines, Atred, Atrex, Attrex, ATZ, Azinotox 500, Candex, Cekuzina-T, Chromozin, Crisamina, Crisatrina, Crisazine, Crisazina, Cyazine, Extrazine II, Farmco, Fenamine, Fenatrol, Fogard, G30027, Geigy 30027, Gesaprim, Gesaprim 50, Gesaprim 500, Gesoprim, Griffex, Griffex 4L, Hungazin, Hungazin PK, Inakor, Laddock, Maizina, Mebazine, Oleogesaprim, Oleogesaprim 200, Pitezin, Primatol, Primatol A, Primaze, Radizine, Radazine, Scotts Bonus Type S, Strazine, Triazine A 1294, Vectal, Vectal SC, Vectral SC, Weedex, Weedex A, Wonuk, Zeaphos, Zeapos, and Zeazin.

www.newstarget.com

New “Truth in Labeling” Rules for Sunscreen Proposed

Monday, August 27th, 2007

Under Pressure from Congress

WASHINGTON — Under pressure from Congress, government regulators Thursday proposed new “truth in labeling” rules for sunscreen to give consumers clearer, more complete information on protection against cancer-causing ultraviolet rays.

Once finalized, the rules would require manufacturers to test products for protection against two types of ultraviolet rays instead of one, as is now standard. Sunscreen lotions would carry a warning that alone they offered no guarantee against the sun’s rays, and that consumers should also stay out of the midday sun and consider wearing hats and long sleeves.

Taken together, the new requirements would help consumers “make informed decisions about protecting themselves against the harmful effects of the sun,” said Food and Drug Administration Commissioner Dr. Andrew C. von Eschenbach, who was treated for melanoma, a serious form of skin cancer, in 1987.

This will bring things more up to date,” said Dr. Sheldon R. Pinnell, a dermatology professor at Duke University Medical Center. “The worry is that people have a false sense of security.”

Critics, though calling the agency’s move a positive step, expressed concern about when the requirements might be finalized.

www.organicconsumers.org

The Truth About Tap Water

Friday, August 24th, 2007

Most tap water in the United States is laced with fluoride, a toxic industrial chemical that has been widely promoted as being healthy for the public.

In reality, however, fluoride is a poison that may harm your health. Consider this:

  • The American Dental Association admits that fluoride is harmful to the development of teeth
  • Fluoride is used in rat poison
  • Ninety percent of the fluoride used to fluoridate U.S. water systems comes from the fertilizer industry and may contain trace amounts of various heavy metals such as lead, mercury, and arsenic


The only states where less than 25 percent of the tap water is fluoridated are Hawaii, Oregon, Utah, Montana, and New Jersey. The others fluoridate from 25 percent to over 75 percent of their water supplies.

Countertop and pitcher filters typically only filter out particulate matter, not fluoride. You can remove fluoride from your drinking water using a reverse osmosis filtering system.

Too Much Truth July 24, 2007

Dr. Mercola comments

Fluoride has been added to the U.S. water supply for over 50 years to prevent dental decay. What you may be surprised to learn is that studies have found no difference in rates of tooth decay in countries that use fluoridated water, compared with those that don’t.

It turns out that any benefit of fluoride in preventing the spread of cavities results from a topical application — not from ingesting it.

Meanwhile, swallowing fluoride — from your tap water, toothpaste, processed foods, or beverages — is not a wise practice. This chemical:

  • Accumulates in your bones, making them brittle and more easily fractured, and in your pineal gland, which may inhibit the production of the hormone melatonin, which helps regulate the onset of puberty
  • Damages tooth enamel (known as dental fluorosis) and may lower fertility rates
  • Has been found to increase the uptake of aluminum into the brain and lead into blood
  • Inhibits antibodies from forming in the blood
  • Confuses the immune system, causing it to attack the body’s tissues. This can increase the growth rate of tumors in people prone to cancer

Recognizing this very poor risk-to-benefit ratio, many European countries have banned fluoride altogether.

Yet, here in the United States, fluoride is added liberally to water supplies, and is even sold as “nursery water” to give to babies.

Earlier this year, the American Dental Association finally capitulated to the facts and issued a warning about giving fluoridated water to infants under 1 year old… but nursery water, which is essentially fluoridated water, is still on the shelves and, believe it or not, is advertised as being “a first step to your baby’s good health!”

If you are just finding out about the dangers of fluoride and want to know more, The Fluoride Deception by Christopher Bryson is an excellent resource. You can also review What Your Dentist Isn’t Telling You About Fluoride for more information on the dangers of fluoride.

Now, if you’d like to do something about the fluoride in your drinking water (for those of you who live in the United States), running out to stock up on bottled water will not protect you. Like tap water, bottled water is often tainted with fluoride (not to mention other chemicals like chlorine).

Right now, the best way you can provide pure, fluoride-free water to your family is by using a reverse osmosis filter, which you can install in your home.

Although a distillation unit will also remove fluoride from your water, I personally do not recommend drinking distilled water, unless you are using it for short-term detoxification purposes.

Distilled water has the wrong ionization, pH, polarization, and oxidation potentials, and if you drink it for too long it can drain your body of necessary minerals.

www.mercola.com

ALERT: USDA Says Foods Labeled as ‘Raw’ Can Be Pasteurized

Thursday, August 23rd, 2007

Under pressure from industrial agriculture lobbyists, the USDA has quietly approved a new regulation that will effectively end distribution of raw almonds, while putting many family farmers out of business. The regulation is scheduled to go into effect in just a few short days on September 1st, unless thousands of consumers take action now.

The rule requires pasteurization of almonds, including organic, yet allows those same almonds to continue to be labeled as “raw”. Nutritionists point out that raw, organic almonds are far superior, in terms of nutrition, than pasteurized almonds.

One of the FDA-recommended pasteurization methods requires the use of propylene oxide, which is classified as a “possible human carcinogen” by the International Agency for Research on Cancer and is banned in Canada, Mexico, and the European Union.

Organic and family-scale almond farmers are protesting the proposed rule, saying it will effectively put them out of business, since the minimum price for the pasteurization equipment is $500,000.

The agency claims pasteurization is necessary, since there have been two food contamination incidents with raw almonds since 2001.

But both of these incidents, in fact, were the result of blatant mismanagement on large industrial-scale almond farms.

To learn more and send message, click link below…

www.organicconsumers.org

What’s best? Soy milk, cow’s milk, raw milk and fermented milk (kefir)

Wednesday, August 22nd, 2007

One of the most common questions I’m asked concerns my recommendations for milk or milk alternatives. My answer on this question has evolved over the years, so today, I’ll share my latest preferences for milk and milk-like beverages.

Thumbs down: Soy milk

A few years ago, I recommended soy milk as a natural alternative to cow’s milk. But since then, far better alternatives have emerged (see below). Also, more information has appeared regarding the environmental impact of soybean farming (the Amazon rainforest is being devastated by clear cutting to create soybean agricultural lands) as well as the frightening fact that most soybeans grown today are genetically modified (GMO) varieties.

On top of this, most popular soy milk brands (I won’t name names, but these are likely the ones in your grocery store) have been bought out by big, profit-seeking food and beverage corporations, and as a result, they’ve been sugared up and made nutritionally inferior. Check the ingredients on “plain” soy milk the next time you’re at the store: It’s loaded with sugar!

Without question, most soy milk has become too mainstream, too sugary and too much controlled by the same food and beverage giants that are still manufacturing and marketing other products that promote degenerative disease. Because of these reasons, I no longer recommend soy milk (unless you make it yourself or get it from a small, truly natural company).

Thumbs down: Processed cow’s milk

I’m also not thrilled about processed milk from cows. By “processed,” I mean homogenized and pasteurized. The pasteurization kills all the beneficial microorganisms, and homogenization artificially modifies dairy fats in a way that ultimately harms the human cardiovascular system when consumed. Processed “mainstream” milk is also taken from dairy cows pumped up with antibiotics, rBGH (Bovine Growth Hormone) and usually treated very poorly in terms of ethics. Even the popular brands showing happy cows and claiming to be organic are under intense fire by the Organic Consumers Association (www.OrganicConsumers.org) for exploiting certain loopholes that allow non-organic cows to be suddenly considered “organic” on the day they’re giving milk.

Processed cow’s milk is bad for your health and bad for the cows who give it. It’s great for corporate profits, however, and that’s why milk continues to be so heavily marketed as a nutritional beverage. They’ve even managed to so strongly influence the USDA that the latest dietary recommendations by this government agency essentially recommend that everyone should drink more milk. And it’s no surprise that infant formula manufacturers have, for decades, tried to convince nutritionally ignorant mothers that cow’s milk is better for their baby than human breast milk. (An odd idea, isn’t it?)

Thumbs up: Raw milk

Over the last two years, I’ve become a proponent of raw milk (especially raw fermented milk, see below). Raw goat’s milk is my personal recommendation, but even raw cow’s milk has merit. What’s so good about raw milk? Because it’s not homogenized or pasteurized, it’s nutritionally superior to dead, cooked milk. Raw milk seems to be far easier to digest, and it contains living bacteria cultures that enhance digestion and even soothe the digestive tract.

It’s no surprise, then, that raw milk is under attack by both federal regulators and some members of the processed milk industry. They don’t want people to find a “superior” milk that isn’t as profitable to sell (because it has reduced shelf life), so they’re trying to destroy the raw milk market and limit consumer choice to processed, dead milk. (The same is true in the almond industry, where the Almond Board of California is now trying to irradiate all almonds grown in the state, yet have them labeled as “raw” even when they’re dead.)

This attack on raw milk is dressed up to look like a public safety concern. Raw milk is dangerous, regulators claim, because the live cultures might get contaminated with unfriendly bacteria and harm someone. The preferred alternative, it seems, is to kill all the food so that it harms everyone equally.

In terms of choosing raw milk, the typical choices are raw cow’s milk and raw goat’s milk. Raw goat’s milk is more compatible with human nutritional needs (and is especially beneficial to infants when mother’s milk isn’t available), but it has a stronger taste that not everyone enjoys. I encourage you to try both raw goat’s milk and raw cow’s milk, then decide what you like best. The proteins in the goat’s milk are, no doubt, easier for humans to digest.

Thumbs way up: Fermented raw milk

The best dairy beverage for your health is, in my opinion, fermented raw milk. If you take raw milk and inoculate it with bacterial cultures, then let it sit for a day or two, you end up with a living, predigested, nutritionally superior beverage that’s so packed with life it’s actually fizzy (carbonated due to the off-gassing of bacteria) when you make it yourself at home.

One form of this fermented milk is called Kefir. It’s an incredible beverage when you make it yourself. The store-bought kefir just isn’t the same because it’s usually dead, flat and pasteurized. But home-made kefir is something else entirely! It’s alive, energetic and completely natural.

I was recently treated to some kefir made from raw goat’s milk by a raw foods chef in Tucson — a man I hope to feature on NewsTarget videos later this year. He makes kefir in jars on his kitchen countertop, using a kefir culture that’s been passed down from one raw foodist to another for years… maybe even decades. It contained no sweeteners or additives of any kind; just raw goat’s milk cultured with bacteria. After drinking it, I noticed an immediate energetic difference, and in the days that followed, I was amazed at the therapeutic effect on my digestive and eliminative processes. Since then, I’ve really upped my intake of fermented foods in general.

Store-bought kefir is tricky. Definitely avoid non-organic kefir of any kind, and I strongly recommend that even when you buy organic kefir, avoid products made with added sugars. This is a fermented beverage, not ice cream. Don’t think it’s supposed to taste like a milkshake. It’s a slightly bitter beverage when you drink it plain, but that’s what kefir is supposed to be.

Thumbs way up: Raw almond milk

Another current favorite at my house is raw almond milk. It’s made from raw, soaked almonds, water, vanilla and a pinch of sea salt. I’ve posted a video on how to make this yourself using a Vita-Mix. (Click here to see the video.)

Raw almond milk is both delicious and nutritious. While it doesn’t have the protein content of animal milk, it’s rich in plant-based fats and various anti-cancer phytonutrients. Once you make a batch, you’ll need to drink it within a day or two, since it tends to sour very quickly (it’s alive, raw and nutritious, obviously), but I’ve found that you can preserve it in the refrigerator for several days longer by adding a couple of drops of food-grade hydrogen peroxide.

Many raw food proponents are now drinking a combination of raw almond milk and raw goat’s milk kefir. That’s a combination I’m enjoying, too. It’s good to have a balance of both plant and animal-based milks, but only if they’re from ethically treated, naturally raised animals who are not exposed to antibiotics, toxic chemicals or conventional veterinary care (which is all based on chemicals, just like human health care).

Mike’s Milk Matrix
Okay, here’s the low down on milk products and milk alternatives as I see it:

Soy milk: Not recommended. Too many GMO soybeans, bad environmental impact and some possible undesirable estrogen effects. The isoflavones are good for preventing cancer, however.

Processed cow’s milk: It’s just gross. Homogenized, pasteurized, milked from unhealthy cows and containing alarmingly high levels of pus, this liquid is nothing less than frightening. Flee it.

Raw cow’s milk (organic): This is an acceptable dairy beverage. If it’s from healthy cows treated with kindness and good nutrition, this raw beverage is far better than processed cow’s milk.

Row goat’s milk (organic): Even better than raw cow’s milk, since the goat’s milk is easier to digest and more compatible with human nutritional needs.

Fermented milk from cows or goats (organic Kefir): A great choice! It’s alive, nutritious and great for digestive health. Make it yourself for best results. If you buy it, avoid the sugared-up kefir products in the store.

Raw almond milk: A top choice for vegans, one of my favorite beverages. Make it yourself with raw almonds, water a nut milk bag and a blender. Click here to see my almond milk recipe video.

Enjoy!

Mike Adams

NewsTarget.com

Drug Companies Suppress Wider Release of Sicko

Tuesday, August 21st, 2007

One week before Michael Moore�s hotly debated documentary Sicko was scheduled to open, Mark H. Rachesky, M.D.— the founder and president of MHR Fund Management LLC — purchased 33.4 percent (over 40 million shares) of Lions Gate stock.

Lions Gate (along with Weinstein Co.), the company distributing Sicko, had planned to release the film in over 1,600 theaters across the United States in June 2007. However, one week prior to the release (the same week that Rachesky made his purchase), the number was reduced to 400 theaters.

While this could be mere coincidence, some are questioning whether Rachesky�s stock purchase was made for controlling interests in Lions Gate. Typically, for a shareholder to gain major influence on a company, he or she would need to purchase at least 51 percent of the shares.

However, in certain instances an individual can maintain control with just 33.4 percent of shares� which is the exact amount that Rachesky purchased.

Further, Rachesky is involved with a number of health care companies who stand to be impacted by Moore�s provocative film. Rachesky is:

  • On the Board of Directors of Keryx Biopharmaceuticals, Inc.
  • An investment broker for NovaDel Pharma, Inc.
  • The beneficial owner of Medical Nutrition USA, Inc.
  • The Director of Neose Technologies, Inc., a clinical-stage biopharmaceutical company
  • An investor in Emisphere Technologies, Inc., another biopharmaceutical company


Sicko examines the financial and medical struggles of Americans to get proper health care, and chronicles the experience of a group of World Trade Center rescue workers who travel to Cuba to get medical care, for free.

The Zetetic August 4, 2007

Dr. Mercola Comments

Ever since Sicko was released, it has been pounded by criticism. Some claim that the rescue workers in the film got �VIP treatment� in Cuba while others say Moore was �fudging the facts.�

Clearly, there is a lot at stake when it comes to a film threatening to expose some of the pervasive problems in the U.S. health care system, and it would not be a stretch to assume that a big player in the pharmaceutical industry would attempt to limit viewers� access to the film, as the article suggests.

If you have not yet seen Sicko, I would highly recommend it, as it provides an excellent introduction to the flaws plaguing the U.S. health care system.

I don�t, however, agree with Moore�s solution, which is essentially for the U.S. government to pick up the tab. What is wrong with this solution?

Most illness in this country is NOT acute trauma (where a government-paid system may make sense) but rather chronic degenerative diseases. If the government took on the costs of theses diseases, the country would likely become bankrupt rather quickly.

Remember, the United Sates is already paying more than $2 trillion a year for �health care,� — and that�s without paying these extra costs.

What�s even more important, though, is that the majority of chronic illnesses could be prevented and treated if the country returned to preventative medicine that treated the cause of disease — and valued nutrient-rich foods and exercise over artificial and often dangerous pharmaceutical products.

Please, rather than waiting for a change in the health care system to make you healthy, gain the vigor you deserve now by Taking Control of Your Health.

www.mercola.com


Pharmaceutical companies may be flawed, but fixing the health care system still wouldn’t fix the drug abuse problem in this country. It’s not hard to find doctors who will prescribe you the medications you need, though they should never prescribe you medications you think you need. If you have a medical question about a prescription drug, just ask your doctor.

Pesticide Runoff

Monday, August 20th, 2007

The widespread presence of pesticides and other agricultural runoff has been confirmed in the world’s largest coral reef system. Degradation of the system threatens not only a natural treasure but also the region’s economy.

Australia’s Great Barrier Reef is the subject of a recent report by the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority. Entitled the “Annual Marine Monitoring Report 2006,” the study confirms extensive contamination in eight of the ten major tributaries into the marine park, much of which is fertilizer and pesticide runoff from the area’s farmland. Local environmental groups are calling for government protection of the reef from these pollutants, and tourism interests worry that damage to the reef will reduce the number of visitors to Australia. According to World Wildlife Foundation-Australia program leader Nick Heath, “Reducing pollution load is possible and will help us save the Reef, as well as the 60,000 tourism jobs based around the Reef.”

According to the report, “Water quality in the Great Barrier Reef is principally affected by land-based activities in its adjacent catchments, including vegetation modification, grazing, agriculture, urban development, industrial development and aquaculture. Nutrients, sediments and pesticides are the pollutants of most concern for the health of the Great Barrier Reef.”

Among the pesticides found in the waters sampled are diuron, which is found at the mouth of each tributary year round, atrazine, the other most commonly-applied pesticide, and other herbicides. Herbicides are also routinely found in inshore reef water samples.

Mr. Heath cited a 2004 report that found sugar cane farmers were over-applying pesticides by 75 percent as a contributing factor to the study’s results. “These pesticides are used on the ground to kill weeds and will have the same effect in the ocean,” he said.

Mud crabs were also tested for bio-accumulation of persistent organic contaminants like PCBs, dieldrin, and DDT, which is present in 33 percent of the crabs tested. While the concentration of these chemicals is relatively low and not in commonly eaten parts of the crab, the results indicate that long-since banned chemicals are still affecting the ecosystem.

In response, activists call for the Australian government to invest in protection of the Reef. “If nothing is done it’s quite a grim future for the reef,” said Mr. Heath. “Pollution will continue to stress corals, continue to feed wave after wave of crown of thorn starfish outbreaks, reducing coral cover and probably even worse reducing the resilience of the reef to be able to deal with the increased temperatures expected from climate change.”

Mr. Heath’s concern for the Reef’s future is corroborated by a University of North Carolina study, which found that over the past 20 years the Reef has reduced in size at five times the rate of the rainforests.

The continued documentation of environmental degradation throughout the globe in conjunction with pesticide contamination reinforces the need in a global economy to buy certified organic products and vote with your dollar by refusing to support companies that are not socially and environmentally responsible.

www.beyondpesticides.org